Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 85303 

States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 

hearing, or have a speech disability may 

dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to 

access telecommunications relay 

services. Individuals outside the United 

States should use the relay services 

offered within their country to make 

international calls to the point of 

contact in the United States. You may 

also view the ICR at http://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq) and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we 

provide the general public and other 

Federal agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on new, proposed, revised, 

and continuing collections of 

information. This helps us assess the 

impact of our information collection 

requirements and minimize the public’s 

reporting burden. It also helps the 

public understand our information 

collection requirements and provide the 

requested data in the desired format. 

A Federal Register notice with a 60- 

day public comment period soliciting 

comments on this collection of 

information was published on February 

22, 2023, (88 FR 10934). No comments 

were received. 

As part of our continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burdens, we are again soliciting 

comments from the public and other 

Federal agencies on the proposed ICR 

that is described below. We are 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether or not the 

information will have practical utility. 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used. 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected. 

(4) How might the agency minimize 

the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of response. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. Before including your 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Abstract: Under the provisions of the 

Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA), qualified 

rural residents are provided the 

opportunity to harvest fish, wildlife, 

and other subsistence resources in 

national parks, preserves, and 

monuments in Alaska. The NPS is 

seeking an extension to continue 

surveying Alaska residents who 

customarily and traditionally engage in 

subsistence activities within NPS units. 

The collection includes the following 

Alaskan National Parks, Preserves, and 

Monuments: (1) Aniakchak National 

Monument (ANIA), (2) Bering Land 

Bridge National Preserve (BELA), (3) 

Cape Krusenstern National Monument 

(CAKR), (4) Gates of the Arctic National 

Park and Preserve (GAAR), (5) Kobuk 

Valley National Park (KOVA), (6) 

Noatak National Preserve (NOAT), (7) 

Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and 

Preserve (WRST), and (9) YukonCharley Rivers National Preserve 

(YUCH). This survey is conducted 

through in-person interviews. A 

facilitator collects information about 

harvests, uses, and sharing of 

subsistence resources. Search and 

harvest areas are also mapped over the 

course of the interview. The information 

from this collection will be used by the 

NPS, the Federal Subsistence Board, the 

State of Alaska, and local/regional 

advisory councils in making 

recommendations and informing 

decisions regarding seasons and harvest 

limits of fish, wildlife, and plants in the 

region which communities have 

customarily and traditionally used. 

With this renewal, we are clarifying 

questions in the Food Security Section 

of the survey about harvesting Salmon 

for food, and Black and Brown Bear for 

both food and fur. Both are legal 

subsistence uses of the resource. 

Title of Collection: Community 

Harvest Assessments for Alaskan 

National Parks, Preserves, and 

Monuments. 

OMB Control Number: 1024–0262. 

Form Number: None. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Respondents: 2,359. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 2,359. 

Estimated Completion Time per 

Response: Varies from 10 minutes 

(initial contact) to 1 hour (in-person 

interviews). 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 1,972 hours. 

Type of Review: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Frequency of Collection: One-time. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: None. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

The authority for this action is the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Phadrea Ponds, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26864 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

Summary of Commission Practice 

Relating to Administrative Protective 

Orders 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Summary of Commission 

practice relating to administrative 

protective orders. 

SUMMARY: Since February 1991, the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has published in the 

Federal Register reports on the status of 

its practice with respect to breaches of 

its administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APOs’’) under title VII of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 in response to a direction 

contained in the Conference Report to 

the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. 

Over time, the Commission has added to 

its report discussions of APO breaches 

in Commission proceedings other than 

under title VII and violations of the 

Commission’s rules, including the rule 

on bracketing business proprietary 

information (the ‘‘24-hour rule’’) under 

title 19 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. This notice provides a 

summary of APO breach investigations 

completed during fiscal year 2023. This 

summary addresses APO breach 

investigations related to proceedings 

under both title VII and section 337 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission 

intends for this summary to inform 

representatives of parties to Commission 

proceedings of the specific types of APO 

breaches before the Commission and the 

corresponding types of actions that the 

Commission has taken. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldfine, Office of the General 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
85304 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, telephone (202) 708–5452. 

Hearing-impaired individuals may 

obtain information on this matter by 

contacting the Commission’s TDD 

terminal at (202) 205–1810. General 

information concerning the Commission 

is available on its website at https://

www.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statutory 

authorities for Commission 

investigations provide for the release of 

business proprietary information 

(‘‘BPI’’) or confidential business 

information (‘‘CBI’’) to certain 

authorized representatives in 

accordance with requirements set forth 

in the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure. Such statutory and 

regulatory authorities include: 19 U.S.C. 

1677f; 19 CFR 207.7; 19 U.S.C. 1337(n); 

19 CFR 210.5, 210.34; 19 U.S.C. 2252(i); 

19 CFR 206.17; 19 U.S.C. 4572(f); 19 

CFR 208.22; 19 U.S.C. 1516a(g)(7)(A); 

and 19 CFR 207.100–207.120. The 

discussion below describes APO breach 

investigations that the Commission 

completed during fiscal year 2023, 

including descriptions of actions taken 

in response to any breaches. 

Since 1991, the Commission has 

published annually a summary of its 

actions in response to violations of 

Commission APOs and rule violations. 

See 87 FR 69331 (Nov. 18, 2022); 86 FR 

71916 (Dec. 20, 2021); 85 FR 7589 (Feb. 

10, 2020); 83 FR 42140 (Aug. 20, 2018); 

83 FR 17843 (Apr. 24, 2018); 82 FR 

29322 (June 28, 2017); 81 FR 17200 

(Mar. 28, 2016); 80 FR 1664 (Jan. 13, 

2015); 78 FR 79481 (Dec. 30, 2013); 77 

FR 76518 (Dec. 28, 2012); 76 FR 78945 

(Dec. 20, 2011); 75 FR 66127 (Oct. 27, 

2010); 74 FR 54071 (Oct. 21, 2009); 73 

FR 51843 (Sept. 5, 2008); 72 FR 50119 

(Aug. 30, 2007); 71 FR 39355 (July 12, 

2006); 70 FR 42382 (July 22, 2005); 69 

FR 29972 (May 26, 2004); 68 FR 28256 

(May 23, 2003); 67 FR 39425 (June 7, 

2002); 66 FR 27685 (May 18, 2001); 65 

FR 30434 (May 11, 2000); 64 FR 23355 

(Apr. 30, 1999); 63 FR 25064 (May 6, 

1998); 62 FR 13164 (Mar. 19, 1997); 61 

FR 21203 (May 9, 1996); 60 FR 24880 

(May 10, 1995); 59 FR 16834 (Apr. 8, 

1994); 58 FR 21991 (Apr. 26, 1993); 57 

FR 12335 (Apr. 9, 1992); and 56 FR 4846 

(Feb. 6, 1991). This report does not 

provide an exhaustive list of conduct 

that will be deemed to be a breach of the 

Commission’s APOs. The Commission 

considers APO breach investigations on 

a case-by-case basis. 

As part of the Commission’s efforts to 

educate practitioners about the 

Commission’s current APO practice, the 

Secretary to the Commission 

(‘‘Secretary’’) issued in January 2022 a 

sixth edition of An Introduction to 

Administrative Protective Order Practice 

in Import Injury Investigations (Pub. No. 

5280). This document is available on the 

Commission’s website at http://

www.usitc.gov. 

I. In General 

A. Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Investigations 

The current APO application form for 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations, which the Commission 

revised in May 2020, requires an APO 

applicant to agree to: 

(1) Not divulge any of the BPI 

disclosed under this APO or otherwise 

obtained in this investigation and not 

otherwise available to him or her, to any 

person other than— 

(i) Personnel of the Commission 

concerned with the investigation, 

(ii) The person or agency from whom 

the BPI was obtained, 

(iii) A person whose application for 

disclosure of BPI under this APO has 

been granted by the Secretary, and 

(iv) Other persons, such as paralegals 

and clerical staff, who (a) are employed 

or supervised by and under the 

direction and control of the authorized 

applicant or another authorized 

applicant in the same firm whose 

application has been granted; (b) have a 

need thereof in connection with the 

investigation; (c) are not involved in 

competitive decision making for an 

interested party which is a party to the 

investigation; and (d) have signed the 

acknowledgment for clerical personnel 

in the form attached hereto (the 

authorized applicant shall also sign 

such acknowledgment and will be 

deemed responsible for such persons’ 

compliance with this APO); 

(2) Use such BPI solely for the 

purposes of the above-captioned 

Commission investigation or for U.S. 

judicial or review pursuant to the North 

American Free Trade Agreement the 

determination resulting from such 

investigation of such Commission 

investigation; 

(3) Not consult with any person not 

described in paragraph (1) concerning 

BPI disclosed under this APO or 

otherwise obtained in this investigation 

without first having received the written 

consent of the Secretary and the party 

or the representative of the party from 

whom such BPI was obtained; 

(4) Whenever materials (e.g., 

documents, computer disks or similar 

media) containing such BPI are not 

being used, store such material in a 

locked file cabinet, vault, safe, or other 

suitable container (N.B.: [S]torage of BPI 

on so-called hard disk computer media 

or similar media is to be avoided, 

because mere erasure of data from such 

media may not irrecoverably destroy the 

BPI and may result in violation of 

paragraph C of this APO); 

(5) Serve all materials containing BPI 

disclosed under this APO as directed by 

the Secretary and pursuant to section 

207.7(f) of the Commission’s rules; 

(6) Transmit each document 

containing BPI disclosed under this 

APO: 

(i) With a cover sheet identifying the 

document as containing BPI, 

(ii) With all BPI enclosed in brackets 

and each page warning that the 

document contains BPI, 

(iii) If the document is to be filed by 

a deadline, with each page marked 

‘‘Bracketing of BPI not final for one 

business day after date of filing,’’ and 

(iv) Within two envelopes, the inner 

one sealed and marked ‘‘Business 

Proprietary Information—To be opened 

only by [name of recipient]’’, and the 

outer one sealed and not marked as 

containing BPI; 

(7) Comply with the provision of this 

APO and section 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules 

(i) Make true and accurate 

representations in the authorized 

applicant’s application and promptly 

notify the Secretary of any changes that 

occur after the submission of the 

application and that affect the 

representations made in the application 

(e.g.[,] change in personnel assigned to 

the investigation), 

(ii) Report promptly and confirm in 

writing to the Secretary any possible 

breach of this APO, and 

(iii) Acknowledge that breach of this 

APO may subject the authorized 

applicant and other persons to such 

sanctions or other actions as the 

Commission deems appropriate, 

including the administrative sanctions 

and actions set out in this APO. 

The APO form for antidumping and 

countervailing duty investigations also 

provides for the return or destruction of 

the BPI obtained under the APO on the 

order of the Secretary, at the conclusion 

of the investigation, or at the completion 

of judicial review. The BPI disclosed to 

an authorized applicant under an APO 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigation generally may remain in 

the applicant’s possession during the 

final phase of the investigation. 

The APO further provides that breach 

of an APO may subject an applicant to: 

(1) Disbarment from practice in any 

capacity before the Commission along 

with such person’s partners, associates, 

employer, and employees, for up to 

seven years following publication of a 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 85305 

1Procedures for investigations to determine 

whether a prohibited act, such as a breach, has 

occurred and for imposing sanctions for violation 

of the provisions of a protective order issued during 

a North American Free Trade Agreement or USMCA 

panel or committee proceedings are set out in 19 

CFR 207.100–207.120. The Commission’s Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations conducts the initial 

inquiry in these proceedings. 

determination that the order has been 

breached; 

(2) Referral to the United States 

Attorney; 

(3) In the case of an attorney, 

accountant, or other professional, 

referral to the ethics panel of the 

appropriate professional association; 

(4) Such other administrative 

sanctions as the Commission determines 

to be appropriate, including public 

release of, or striking from the record 

any information or briefs submitted by, 

or on behalf of, such person or the party 

he represents; denial of further access to 

business proprietary information in the 

current or any future investigations 

before the Commission, and issuance of 

a public or private letter of reprimand; 

and 

(5) Such other actions, including but 

not limited to, a warning letter, as the 

Commission determines to be 

appropriate. 

APOs issued in cross-border long-haul 

trucking (‘‘LHT’’) investigations, 

conducted under the United StatesMexico-Canada Agreement (‘‘USMCA’’) 

Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4571– 

4574 (19 U.S.C. 4501 note), and 

safeguard investigations, conducted 

under the statutory authorities listed in 

19 CFR 206.1 and 206.31, contain 

similar (though not identical) 

provisions. 

B. Section 337 Investigations 

APOs in section 337 investigations 

differ from those in title VII 

investigations: There is no set form like 

the title VII APO application, and 

provisions of individual APOs may 

differ depending on the investigation 

and the presiding administrative law 

judge. However, in practice, the 

provisions are often similar in scope 

and applied quite similarly. Any person 

seeking access to CBI during a section 

337 investigation (including, for 

example, outside counsel for parties to 

the investigation and technical experts 

and their staff who are employed for the 

purposes of the investigation) is 

required to read the APO, file a letter 

with the Secretary indicating agreement 

to be bound by the terms of the APO, 

agree not to reveal CBI to anyone other 

than another person permitted access by 

the APO, and agree to utilize the CBI 

solely for the purposes of that 

investigation. 

In general, an APO in a section 337 

investigation will define what kind of 

information is CBI and direct how CBI 

is to be designated and protected. The 

APO will state which persons may have 

access to CBI and which of those 

persons must sign onto the APO. The 

APO will provide instructions on how 

CBI is to be maintained and protected 

by labeling documents and filing 

transcripts under seal. It will provide 

protections for the suppliers of CBI by 

notifying them of a Freedom of 

Information Act request for the CBI and 

providing a procedure for the supplier 

to seek to prevent the release of the 

information. There are provisions for 

disputing the designation of CBI and a 

procedure for resolving such disputes. 

Under the APO, suppliers of CBI are 

given the opportunity to object to the 

release of the CBI to a proposed expert. 

The APO requires a person who 

discloses CBI, other than in a manner 

authorized by the APO, to provide all 

pertinent facts to the supplier of the CBI 

and to the administrative law judge and 

to make every effort to prevent further 

disclosure. Under Commission practice, 

if the underlying investigation is before 

the Commission at the time of the 

alleged breach or if the underlying 

investigation has been terminated, a 

person who discloses CBI, other than in 

a manner authorized by the APO, 

should report the disclosure to the 

Secretary. See 19 CFR 210.25, 210.34(c). 

Upon final termination of an 

investigation, the APO requires all 

signatories to the APO to either return 

to the suppliers or, with the written 

consent of the CBI supplier, destroy the 

originals and all copies of the CBI 

obtained during the investigation. 

The Commission’s regulations 

provide for the imposition of certain 

sanctions if a person subject to the APO 

violates its restrictions. The 

Commission keeps the names of the 

persons being investigated for violating 

an APO confidential unless the sanction 

imposed is a public letter of reprimand. 

19 CFR 210.34(c)(1). The possible 

sanctions are: 

(1) An official reprimand by the 

Commission. 

(2) Disqualification from or limitation 

of further participation in a pending 

investigation. 

(3) Temporary or permanent 

disqualification from practicing in any 

capacity before the Commission 

pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15(a). 

(4) Referral of the facts underlying the 

violation to the appropriate licensing 

authority in the jurisdiction in which 

the individual is licensed to practice. 

(5) Making adverse inferences and 

rulings against a party involved in the 

violation of the APO or such other 

action that may be appropriate. 19 CFR 

210.34(c)(3). 

Commission employees are not 

signatories to the Commission’s APOs 

and do not obtain access to BPI or CBI 

through APO procedures. Consequently, 

they are not subject to the requirements 

of the APO with respect to the handling 

of BPI and CBI. However, Commission 

employees are subject to strict statutory 

and regulatory constraints concerning 

BPI and CBI, and they face potentially 

severe penalties for noncompliance. See 

18 U.S.C. 1905; title 5, U.S. Code; and 

Commission personnel policies 

implementing the statutes. Although the 

Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) limits the 

Commission’s authority to disclose any 

personnel action against agency 

employees, this should not lead the 

public to conclude that no such actions 

have been taken. 

II. Investigations of Alleged APO 

Breaches 

The Commission conducts APO 

breach investigations for potential 

breaches that occur in title VII, 

safeguard, and LHT investigations, as 

well as for potential breaches in section 

337 investigations that are before the 

Commission or have been terminated.1

Administrative law judges handle 

potential APO breaches in section 337 

investigations when the breach occurred 

and is discovered while the underlying 

investigation is before the 

administrative law judge. The 

Commission may review any decision 

that the administrative law judge makes 

on sanctions in accordance with 

Commission regulations. See 19 CFR 

210.25, 210.34(c). 

For Commission APO breach 

investigations, upon finding evidence of 

an APO breach or receiving information 

that there is reason to believe that one 

has occurred, the Secretary notifies 

relevant Commission offices that the 

Secretary has opened an APO breach 

file and that the Commission has 

commenced an APO breach 

investigation. The Commission then 

notifies the alleged breaching parties of 

the alleged breach and provides them 

with the voluntary option to proceed 

under a one- or two-step investigatory 

process. Under the two-step process, 

which was the Commission’s historic 

practice, the Commission determines 

first whether a breach has occurred and, 

if so, who is responsible for it. This is 

done after the alleged breaching parties 

have been provided an opportunity to 

present their views on the matter. The 

breach investigation may conclude after 

this first step if: (1) the Commission 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
85306 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 

determines that no breach occurred and 

issues a letter so stating; or (2) the 

Commission finds that a breach 

occurred but concludes that no further 

action is warranted and issues a 

warning letter. If the Commission 

determines that a breach occurred that 

warrants further action, the Commission 

will then determine what sanction, if 

any, to impose. Before making this 

determination, the Commission 

provides the breaching parties with an 

opportunity to present their views on 

the appropriate sanction and any 

mitigating circumstances. The 

Commission can decide as part of either 

the first or second step to issue a 

warning letter. A warning letter is not a 

sanction, but the Commission will 

consider a warning letter as part of a 

subsequent APO breach investigation. 

The Commission recognizes that the 

two-step process can result in 

duplicative work for the alleged 

breaching party and Commission staff in 

some APO breach investigations. For 

example, parties who self-report their 

own breach often address mitigating 

circumstances and sanctions in their 

initial response to the Commission’s 

letter of inquiry on the breach. But, 

under the Commission’s two-step 

process, they must await a Commission 

decision on breach and then submit 

again their views on mitigating 

circumstances and sanctions. To 

streamline this process and accelerate 

processing times, the Commission offers 

alleged breaching parties the option to 

voluntarily elect a one-step APO breach 

investigation process. Under this 

process, the Commission will determine 

simultaneously whether a breach 

occurred and, if so, the appropriate 

sanction to impose, if any. Under either 

process, the alleged breaching party has 

the opportunity to submit affidavits 

reciting the facts concerning the alleged 

breach and mitigating factors pertaining 

to the appropriate response if a breach 

is found. 

Sanctions for APO violations serve 

three basic interests: (a) preserving the 

confidence of submitters of BPI/CBI that 

the Commission is a reliable protector of 

BPI/CBI; (b) disciplining breachers; and 

(c) deterring future violations. As the 

Conference Report to the Omnibus 

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 

observed: ‘‘[T]he effective enforcement 

of limited disclosure under [APO] 

depends in part on the extent to which 

private parties have confidence that 

there are effective sanctions against 

violation.’’ H.R. Conf. Rep. 100–576, at 

623 (1988). 

The Commission has worked to 

develop consistent jurisprudence, not 

only in determining whether a breach 

has occurred, but also in selecting an 

appropriate response. In determining 

the appropriate response, the 

Commission generally considers 

mitigating factors such as the 

unintentional nature of the breach, the 

lack of prior breaches committed by the 

breaching party, the corrective measures 

taken by the breaching party, and the 

promptness with which the breaching 

party reported the violation to the 

Commission. The Commission also 

considers aggravating circumstances, 

especially whether persons not 

authorized under the APO had access to 

and viewed the BPI/CBI. The 

Commission considers whether there 

have been prior breaches by the same 

person or persons in other 

investigations and whether there have 

been multiple breaches by the same 

person or persons in the same 

investigation. 

The Commission’s rules permit an 

economist or consultant to obtain access 

to BPI/CBI under the APO in a title VII, 

safeguard, or LHT investigation if the 

economist or consultant is under the 

direction and control of an attorney 

under the APO, or if the economist or 

consultant appears regularly before the 

Commission and represents an 

interested party who is a party to the 

investigation. See 19 CFR 

207.7(a)(3)(i)(B) and (C); 19 CFR 

206.17(a)(3)(i)(B) and (C); and 19 CFR 

208.22(a)(3)(i)(B) and (C). Economists 

and consultants who obtain access to 

BPI/CBI under the APO under the 

direction and control of an attorney 

nonetheless remain individually 

responsible for complying with the 

APO. In appropriate circumstances, for 

example, an economist under the 

direction and control of an attorney may 

be held responsible for a breach of the 

APO by failing to redact APO 

information from a document that is 

subsequently filed with the Commission 

and served as a public document, or for 

retaining BPI/CBI without consent of the 

submitter after the termination of an 

investigation. This is so even though the 

Commission may also hold the attorney 

exercising direction or control over the 

economist or consultant responsible for 

the APO breach. In section 337 

investigations, technical experts and 

their staff who are employed for the 

purposes of the investigation are 

required to sign onto the APO and agree 

to comply with its provisions. 

The records of Commission 

investigations of alleged APO breaches 

in antidumping and countervailing duty 

cases, section 337 investigations, 

safeguard investigations, and LHT 

investigations are not publicly available 

and are exempt from disclosure under 

the Freedom of Information Act, 5 

U.S.C. 552. See, e.g., 19 U.S.C. 1677f(g); 

19 U.S.C. 1333(h); 19 CFR 210.34(c). 

The two types of breaches most 

frequently investigated by the 

Commission involve: (1) the APO’s 

prohibition on the dissemination or 

exposure of BPI or CBI to unauthorized 

persons; and (2) the APO’s requirement 

that the materials received under the 

APO be returned or destroyed and that 

a certificate be filed with the 

Commission indicating what actions 

were taken after the termination of the 

investigation or any subsequent appeals 

of the Commission’s determination. The 

dissemination of BPI/CBI usually occurs 

as the result of failure to delete BPI/CBI 

from public versions of documents filed 

with the Commission or transmission of 

proprietary versions of documents to 

unauthorized recipients. Other breaches 

have included the failure to bracket 

properly BPI/CBI in proprietary 

documents filed with the Commission, 

the failure to report immediately known 

or suspected violations of an APO, and 

the failure to adequately supervise nonlawyers in the handling of BPI/CBI. 

Occasionally, the Commission 

conducts APO breach investigations that 

involve members of a law firm or 

consultants working with a firm who 

were granted access to APO materials by 

the firm although they were not APO 

signatories. In many of these cases, the 

firm and the person using the BPI/CBI 

mistakenly believed an APO application 

had been filed for that person. The 

Commission has determined in all of 

these cases that the person who was a 

non-signatory, and therefore did not 

agree to be bound by the APO, could not 

be found to have breached the APO. 

However, under Commission rule 

201.15 (19 CFR 201.15), the Commission 

may take action against these persons 

for good cause shown. In all cases in 

which the Commission has taken such 

action, it decided that the non-signatory 

appeared regularly before the 

Commission, was aware of the 

requirements and limitations related to 

APO access, and should have verified 

their APO status before obtaining access 

to and using the BPI/CBI. The 

Commission notes that section 201.15 

may also be available to issue sanctions 

to attorneys or agents in different factual 

circumstances in which they did not 

technically breach the APO, but their 

action or inaction did not demonstrate 

diligent care of the APO materials, even 

though they appeared regularly before 

the Commission and were aware of the 

importance that the Commission places 

on the proper care of APO materials. 

The Commission has held routinely 

that the disclosure of BPI/CBI through 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 85307 

recoverable metadata or hidden text 

constitutes a breach of the APO even 

when the BPI/CBI is not immediately 

visible without further manipulation of 

the document. In such cases, breaching 

parties have transmitted documents that 

appear to be public documents in which 

the parties have removed or redacted all 

BPI/CBI. However, further inspection of 

the document reveals that confidential 

information is actually retrievable by 

manipulating codes in software or 

through the recovery of hidden text or 

metadata. In such instances, the 

Commission has found that the 

electronic transmission of a public 

document with BPI/CBI in a recoverable 

form was a breach of the APO. 

The Commission has cautioned 

counsel to ensure that each authorized 

applicant files with the Commission 

within 60 days of the completion of an 

import injury investigation or at the 

conclusion of judicial or binational 

review of the Commission’s 

determination, a certificate stating that, 

to the signatory’s knowledge and belief, 

all copies of BPI/CBI have been returned 

or destroyed, and no copies of such 

materials have been made available to 

any person to whom disclosure was not 

specifically authorized. This 

requirement applies to each attorney, 

consultant, or expert in a firm who has 

access to BPI/CBI. One firm-wide 

certificate is insufficient. 

Attorneys who are signatories to the 

APO in a section 337 investigation 

should inform the administrative law 

judge and the Secretary if there are any 

changes to the information that was 

provided in the application for access to 

the CBI. This is similar to the 

requirement to update an applicant’s 

information in title VII investigations. 

In addition, attorneys who are 

signatories to the APO in a section 337 

investigation should send a notice to the 

Commission if they stop participating in 

the investigation or the subsequent 

appeal of the Commission’s 

determination. The notice should 

inform the Commission about the 

disposition of CBI obtained under the 

APO that was in their possession, or the 

Commission could hold them 

responsible for any failure of their 

former firm to return or destroy the CBI 

in an appropriate manner. 

III. Specific APO Breach Investigations 

Case 1. The Commission determined 

that an attorney breached the APO 

issued in a section 337 investigation 

when the attorney prepared, filed in 

EDIS, and served a public version of a 

confidential document that contained 

unredacted CBI. 

After filing the public version in EDIS 

and serving it on opposing counsel, the 

attorney received notification from 

opposing counsel that the document 

contained unredacted CBI. The attorney 

immediately contacted the Commission, 

and the Office of the Secretary removed 

the document from public view five 

hours after it had been posted. The 

attorney filed a corrected public version 

that redacted all CBI, but unauthorized 

individuals had accessed the public 

version with unredacted CBI while it 

was posted publicly. Although the 

attorney argued to the Commission that 

the information at issue was not CBI, the 

Commission found that the attorney had 

not provided evidence sufficient to 

demonstrate that the CBI was available 

publicly at the time of the breach. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was unintentional 

and inadvertent; (2) after being notified 

of the breach, the attorney took prompt 

action to remedy the breach and prevent 

further dissemination of CBI; (3) the 

attorney self-reported the breach to the 

Commission; (4) the attorney’s law firm 

implemented new procedures to prevent 

similar breaches in the future; and (5) 

the attorney had not previously 

breached an APO in the two-year period 

preceding the date of this breach. The 

Commission also considered the 

following aggravating factors: (1) the 

attorney did not discover the breach; 

and (2) unauthorized individuals had 

access to and presumably viewed the 

CBI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

a private letter of reprimand to the 

attorney. 

Case 2. The Commission determined 

that an attorney breached the APO 

issued in a section 337 investigation 

when the attorney prepared and filed in 

EDIS a public version of a confidential 

document that contained unredacted 

CBI. 

The public version that the attorney 

filed contained no redactions. Eleven 

days after the public version was posted 

publicly to EDIS, opposing counsel 

reported to the Commission that the 

document contained CBI. The Secretary 

immediately removed the document 

from public view, and the attorney filed 

a corrected public version that redacted 

all CBI. However, multiple 

unauthorized individuals had accessed 

the public version with unredacted CBI 

while it was posted publicly. Although 

the attorney argued to the Commission 

that the information at issue was not 

CBI, the Commission found that the 

attorney had not provided evidence 

sufficient to demonstrate that the CBI 

was available publicly at the time of the 

breach. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was unintentional 

and inadvertent; and (2) the attorney 

had not previously breached an APO in 

the two-year period preceding the date 

of this breach. The Commission also 

considered the following aggravating 

factors: (1) the attorney did not discover 

the breach; (2) the public version was 

posted publicly to EDIS for twelve days; 

and (3) unauthorized individuals had 

access to and presumably viewed the 

CBI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

a private letter of reprimand to the 

attorney. 

Case 3. The Commission determined 

that a law firm breached the APO issued 

in a section 337 investigation when it 

improperly retained documents 

containing CBI past the investigation’s 

termination date. The Commission also 

determined that a second breach 

occurred when a non-APO-signatory 

attorney at the law firm accessed an 

improperly retained document 

containing CBI, used that document as 

a template in an unrelated section 337 

investigation, and in doing so 

inadvertently disclosed CBI to counsel 

in the unrelated investigation. 

The law firm discovered both the 

improper retention and the 

unauthorized use approximately a year 

and a half after the underlying section 

337 investigation had terminated. The 

law firm immediately reported the 

events to the then-presiding 

administrative law judge in the 

underlying section 337 investigation, 

and it then confirmed both destruction 

of the document by the unauthorized 

recipient in the unrelated section 337 

investigation and that it did not possess 

any other CBI from the terminated 

underlying section 337 investigation. 

Despite the law firm’s confirmation that 

it had destroyed all of the improperly 

retained CBI, the law firm discovered 

about five years later that it still retained 

documents from the underlying section 

337 investigation in a misnamed and 

archived electronic folder that was 

inaccessible absent special 

circumstances. The law firm 

quarantined the folder to prevent further 

access by law firm personnel, notified 

the Commission accordingly, and 

implemented new safeguards to prevent 

future inadvertent retention of CBI. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) both breaches were 

inadvertent and unintentional; (2) the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
85308 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 

law firm discovered its own breaches; 

and (3) after discovering the breaches, 

the law firm took prompt corrective 

action to investigate the breaches and 

prevent further dissemination of CBI; (4) 

the law firm promptly self-reported the 

unauthorized retention, access, and use 

of CBI; (5) for the breach involving the 

improper retention of CBI, the CBI 

remained otherwise protected by being 

stored on an internal archive that was 

inaccessible absent special 

circumstances; and (6) the law firm 

implemented new safeguarding 

procedures to prevent against similar 

breaches in the future. The Commission 

also considered the following 

aggravating factors: (1) one breach 

resulted in unauthorized individuals 

accessing and viewing the CBI; (2) the 

law firm violated the APO in two 

different ways, by improperly retaining 

CBI and by exposing CBI to an 

unauthorized party; and (3) the law firm 

committed multiple breaches during the 

relevant two-year time period, including 

a breach in another APO breach 

investigation. The Commission also 

noted that the law firm had failed to 

properly dispose of the CBI for several 

years after discovering the first breach. 

The Commission issued a private 

letter of reprimand to the law firm for 

the two breaches because none of the 

individuals responsible for the breaches 

remained at the law firm at the time the 

Commission issued the sanction. The 

Commission further required the 

remaining APO signatories at the law 

firm to submit affidavits confirming the 

destruction of all CBI from the 

underlying investigation and confirming 

that the law firm had not improperly 

retained CBI from any other section 337 

investigation. 

Case 4. The Commission determined 

that two attorneys from different law 

firms that were co-counsel for a party in 

a section 337 investigation each 

separately breached the APO by 

emailing drafts of a brief that contained 

CBI acquired under the APO to an 

unauthorized recipient, who then 

shared the CBI with additional 

unauthorized individuals. 

The first breach occurred when an 

attorney from one of the two law firms 

emailed a draft brief containing 

unredacted CBI to a group that included 

an APO non-signatory. The second 

breach occurred shortly thereafter that 

same day when an attorney from the 

other law firm sent a reply email to the 

same group copied on the first email 

with another draft that also contained 

unredacted CBI. Both breaching emails 

included among the recipients the 

attorney who was not authorized to 

receive the CBI and five attorneys from 

both co-counsel law firms that were 

signatories to the APO. The non-APO 

signatory attorney then forwarded the 

drafts to additional attorneys that were 

not APO signatories. One of the law 

firms discovered the breaches 20 days 

after the breaching emails were sent to 

the unauthorized recipients. The 

breaching parties sought to confirm 

destruction of the documents at issue 

the morning after discovering the CBI 

disclosure, and they reported the 

breaches to the Commission two days 

later. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was inadvertent 

and unintentional; (2) one of the 

breaching parties discovered the breach; 

(3) after discovering the breach, the 

breaching parties took prompt action to 

remedy the breach and prevent further 

dissemination of CBI; (4) the breaching 

parties promptly self-reported the 

breach to the Commission; and (5) the 

attorneys involved had not previously 

breached an APO in the two-year period 

preceding the dates of these breaches. 

The Commission also considered the 

following aggravating factors: (1) 

unauthorized individuals had access to 

and viewed the BPI; and (2) the 

breaching parties violated the APO on 

two occasions. 

The Commission issued private letters 

of reprimand to both attorneys who 

emailed the documents containing 

unredacted CBI. The Commission also 

issued warning letters to the five APO 

signatories who were copied on the 

breaching emails but failed to identify 

the breaches. As APO signatories and 

recipients of the email transmitting 

unredacted CBI, they had an 

opportunity to immediately discover 

that one of the recipients on the group 

email with the draft brief containing 

unredacted CBI was not an APO 

signatory and to prevent the second 

breach from occurring. The Commission 

found that warning letters for these five 

attorneys were appropriate because 

early detection of the first breach could 

have prevented the second breach, and 

it would have prevented the 

unauthorized recipient from further 

disseminating CBI to additional 

unauthorized individuals. 

Case 5. The Commission determined 

that four attorneys at a law firm 

breached the APO issued in a section 

337 investigation when the law firm 

publicly filed in EDIS and served on its 

clients a document that contained 

unredacted CBI. 

Although all four attorneys worked on 

the document, only three of the four 

attorneys reviewed the final version for 

CBI. After those three attorneys 

reviewed the document and determined 

that it did not contain CBI, one of the 

attorneys publicly filed the document in 

EDIS and another served the document 

on the firm’s clients, who were not 

authorized under the APO to view CBI. 

Six days later, opposing counsel 

notified one of the attorneys that the 

document contained unredacted CBI. 

After receiving this notice, the attorney 

immediately contacted the Commission 

to request that the document be 

removed from public view, contacted 

the Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations to notify them of the 

issue, and contacted the clients who had 

received the document to request that 

they destroy it. In their submissions to 

the Commission about this breach, the 

attorneys confirmed to the Commission 

that they had received responses (and 

confirmations of destruction) from all of 

the clients who had received the 

unredacted document. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was inadvertent 

and unintentional; (2) after being 

notified of the breach, the law firm took 

prompt action to remedy the breach and 

prevent further dissemination of CBI; (3) 

the firm promptly self-reported the 

breach to the Commission; and (4) the 

attorneys had not previously breached 

an APO in the two-year period 

preceding the date of this breach. The 

Commission also considered the 

following aggravating factors: (1) the 

responsible attorneys did not discover 

the breach; and (2) unauthorized 

individuals had access to and 

presumably viewed the CBI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

private letters of reprimand to the three 

attorneys who reviewed the final 

version of the document. The 

Commission determined to issue a 

warning letter to the fourth attorney 

who worked on the document but did 

not review the final version before it 

was filed or served. The Commission 

found that the fourth attorney 

contributed to the breach but was not 

directly responsible for the exposure of 

CBI to unauthorized individuals. 

Case 6. The Commission determined 

that a law firm breached the APO issued 

in a section 337 investigation when it 

filed on EDIS a public version of a brief 

that contained unredacted CBI, 

including language that a confidential 

Commission document treated as CBI. 

Two supervisory attorneys and one 

associate attorney from the law firm 

were each responsible for drafting, 

reviewing, and redacting the public 

version of the brief. A fourth attorney, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 85309 

who served as lead counsel in the 

underlying investigation, was involved 

in drafting and reviewing the brief and 

signed the brief when it was filed. The 

fourth attorney relied on both 

supervisory attorneys and the associate 

attorney for redacting the brief for CBI. 

The law firms representing the parties to 

the underlying section 337 investigation 

agreed to exchange briefs that they had 

each redacted for their own clients’ CBI. 

Following that procedure, the breaching 

law firm reviewed the public version of 

its brief for only its own client’s CBI, 

despite knowing that it had included 

CBI obtained under the APO that a 

confidential Commission document 

treated as CBI. The law firm sought 

confirmation from opposing counsel 

that the draft did not contain CBI from 

opposing counsel’s client, and opposing 

counsel signed off on the draft under the 

mistaken belief that it did not contain 

its client’s CBI. However, the brief, as 

filed on EDIS, did contain CBI from 

opposing counsel’s client that the law 

firm had obtained under the APO. 

Although the law firm had relied on 

opposing counsel’s representation that 

the draft brief did not contain their 

clients’ CBI, the law firm ultimately was 

responsible for the breach by deciding 

to include the unredacted CBI in the 

brief and for exposing it to unauthorized 

persons by filing the public version of 

the brief on EDIS. Opposing counsel 

discovered the breach and notified the 

law firm and the Commission. The 

original public version of the brief was 

on EDIS for two days before the 

breaching law firm filed a corrected 

public version of the brief (which it did 

immediately upon being notified of the 

breach). 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was inadvertent 

and unintentional; (2) the law firm took 

prompt corrective measures upon 

learning of the alleged breach by filing 

a corrected public version of the brief; 

and (3) the parties involved had not 

previously breached an APO in the twoyear period preceding this breach. The 

Commission also considered the 

following aggravating factors: (1) the 

breach resulted in exposure of CBI to 

unauthorized individuals; and (2) the 

law firm did not discover its own 

breach. 

The Commission issued private letters 

of reprimand to the two supervisory 

attorneys and the associate attorney for 

their role in the breach. The 

Commission also issued a warning letter 

to the lead counsel, who failed to 

provide proper protection of CBI, but 

who was not directly responsible for the 

disclosure of the CBI. 

Case 7. The Commission determined 

that two partners and one senior 

counsel at a law firm breached the APO 

issued in a section 337 investigation in 

three different ways. First, the 

Commission determined that they 

breached the APO when they accessed 

and used CBI from the investigation in 

related federal district court litigation 

before finalizing a cross-use agreement 

covering such use. Second, the 

Commission determined that they 

breached the APO when, before 

finalizing the cross-use agreement, they 

provided CBI to an associate attorney 

who was not subscribed to the APO in 

the terminated section 337 

investigation. Finally, the Commission 

determined that they breached the APO 

by publicly filing a CBI exhibit from the 

terminated section 337 investigation in 

the district court’s electronic case-filing 

system. 

Following the termination of the 

underlying section 337 investigation, 

the law firm began discussions with 

opposing counsel to formulate a crossuse agreement that would allow the 

parties to retain and use certain CBI 

from the section 337 investigation in 

related federal district court litigation. 

In its submissions to the Commission on 

this matter, the law firm indicated that 

it had restricted internal access to the 

CBI until the agreement was finalized 

with opposing counsel. However, four 

months before the agreement was 

finalized, the partners and senior 

counsel used CBI from the section 337 

investigation in preparing a filing for the 

district court litigation and attached a 

confidential exhibit from the section 

337 investigation to it. The partners and 

senior counsel also provided CBI from 

the section 337 investigation to an 

associate attorney who had not worked 

on the underlying section 337 

investigation and was not authorized 

under the APO to access or view CBI 

from it. The associate had no previous 

experience with section 337 

investigations or with Commission APO 

practice. 

Because the cross-use agreement was 

not yet in place at the time that the law 

firm was preparing the filing at issue in 

this investigation, the law firm sought 

approval from opposing counsel to use 

the confidential exhibit and the CBI 

within it, but opposing counsel denied 

this request. Following this denial, the 

senior counsel, who was the primary 

drafter of the filing, reviewed the 

document to remove all references to 

CBI and instructed the associate to 

remove the confidential exhibit from it. 

One of the partners, who was lead 

counsel for the district court litigation, 

reviewed the final version of the revised 

filing and also instructed the associate 

to remove the exhibit and correct the 

labeling of the remaining exhibits. The 

associate instructed administrative staff 

to remove the confidential exhibit and 

to replace the confidential exhibit on 

the exhibit list with a public exhibit. 

When staff sent a revised exhibit list 

and revised set of exhibits, the associate 

checked the exhibit list to confirm that 

staff had made the required 

adjustments, but the associate did not 

check the public or confidential sets of 

exhibits to ensure that the confidential 

exhibit had been removed. The partner 

and senior counsel also did not check 

the exhibits. The associate then 

instructed staff to submit the filing and 

its exhibits to the district court’s casefiling system, which they did. After 

receiving notification of the filing, one 

of the partners asked the associate to 

confirm that the firm had not filed any 

of the confidential exhibits publicly. 

The associate confirmed that the 

confidential exhibits were not accessible 

through the district court’s electronic 

case-filing system but did not check the 

public exhibits. 

The morning after the law firm filed 

the document and exhibits, opposing 

counsel notified the law firm that the 

filing included a confidential exhibit 

that was available publicly on the 

district court’s electronic case-filing 

system. In this notification, opposing 

counsel reiterated to the law firm that it 

did not approve of the law firm’s use of 

the confidential exhibit as part of the 

filing. The law firm immediately 

contacted the district court to request 

that the court remove the filing, which 

it did that same day. In its submissions 

to the Commission on this matter, the 

law firm indicated that it put in place 

stricter procedures for the retention and 

storage of CBI from terminated 

investigations that are subject to 

potential cross-use agreements to ensure 

that such agreements are finalized and 

in place before anyone accesses or uses 

the CBI. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the public exposure of the 

CBI was inadvertent and unintentional; 

(2) after being notified of the exposure, 

the law firm took prompt action to 

remedy the breach and prevent further 

dissemination of CBI; (3) the firm selfreported the use and exposure of CBI to 

the Commission; (4) the law firm 

implemented new procedures to prevent 

against similar breaches in the future; 

and (5) the attorneys had not previously 

breached an APO in the two-year period 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
85310 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 234 / Thursday, December 7, 2023 / Notices 

preceding the date of these breaches. 

The Commission also considered the 

following aggravating factors: (1) the law 

firm’s use of the CBI and its provision 

to an associate were not inadvertent; (2) 

unauthorized individuals had access to 

and presumably viewed the CBI; (3) the 

law firm violated the APO in three 

different ways; (4) the law firm did not 

discover the public exposure of the CBI; 

and (5) the law firm failed to follow its 

own procedures by accessing and using 

CBI to which the firm had restricted 

access pending the completion of the 

cross-use agreement. 

The Commission also considered the 

law firm’s argument that its use of the 

exhibit and its provision of CBI to the 

associate attorney was consistent with 

28 U.S.C. 1659(b), which provides for 

the transfer and admissibility of the 

Commission record in federal district 

court litigation under certain 

circumstances. However, the 

Commission determined that the exhibit 

at issue was not a part of the 

Commission record, as defined under 19 

CFR 210.38(a), and thus, it was not 

within the scope of section 1659(b). In 

addition, the Commission noted that the 

application of section 1659(b) would not 

mitigate the public exposure of the CBI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

private letters of reprimand to the 

partner who served as lead counsel and 

to the senior counsel. The Commission 

determined that they were both part of 

the decisions to use the CBI in the filing, 

to provide it to the associate attorney, 

and to delegate the removal of the 

exhibit to the associate, who did not 

have any previous experience with 

section 337 investigations and 

Commission APO practice. The 

Commission determined to issue a 

warning letter to the second partner, 

who worked on the filing and was aware 

of the associate’s access to the CBI, but 

was not involved with the finalization 

of the document or the failed process to 

remove the confidential exhibit. 

The Commission found that good 

cause existed to issue a warning letter 

to the associate under 19 CFR 201.15(a). 

The associate was not a signatory to the 

APO in the underlying section 337 

investigation and did not have previous 

Commission APO experience, and thus 

the Commission determined that the 

issuance of a sanction would be 

inappropriate. However, the associate 

had several years of experience as an 

attorney, was aware that the exhibit was 

confidential, and had received specific 

instructions to remove the confidential 

exhibit from the filing. The associate 

was also directly responsible for the 

public exposure of CBI. 

Case 8. The Commission determined 

that an attorney at a law firm breached 

the APO issued in a section 337 

investigation when the law firm 

publicly filed in EDIS and served to its 

clients a confidential document that the 

attorney had prepared. 

Although the document contained 

unredacted CBI, the attorney did not 

place confidential headers on the 

document when he was preparing it to 

be filed. As a result, after the attorney 

finalized the document, a paralegal filed 

the document publicly on EDIS, and the 

law firm’s client, who was not on the 

APO, was provided with a copy of the 

document. After the document was 

posted to EDIS, opposing counsel 

notified the attorney that the document 

contained CBI, and the paralegal, at the 

attorney’s direction, contacted the 

Office of the Secretary to request that 

the document be removed from public 

view. In addition, the attorney contacted 

the client who had received the 

document and requested that the client 

destroy it. The attorney refiled the 

document as confidential, but multiple 

unauthorized individuals had accessed 

the document while it was available 

publicly on EDIS. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered the following mitigating 

factors: (1) the breach was unintentional 

and inadvertent; (2) the attorney selfreported the breach to the Commission; 

(3) after being notified of the breach, the 

attorney took prompt action to remedy 

the breach and prevent further 

dissemination of CBI; and (4) the 

attorney had not previously breached an 

APO in the two-year period preceding 

the date of this breach. The Commission 

also considered the following 

aggravating factors: (1) the attorney did 

not discover the breach; and (2) 

unauthorized individuals had access to 

and presumably viewed the CBI. 

The Commission determined to issue 

a private letter of reprimand to the 

attorney. The Commission determined 

not to hold the paralegal who filed the 

document or any other individuals at 

the law firm responsible for the breach. 

The attorney was the only person 

involved in the preparation of the 

document for filing, and the breach 

occurred because the attorney failed to 

apply CBI headers. 

Case 9. The Commission determined 

that an attorney breached the APO in a 

section 337 investigation by 

transmitting to unauthorized 

individuals a link to a document that 

contained unredacted CBI obtained 

under the APO. 

The attorney discovered the breach 

eight days after sending the link when 

he received a question from one of the 

unauthorized recipients who had gained 

unauthorized access. Upon learning of 

the breach, the attorney immediately 

deactivated the link and confirmed that 

unauthorized recipients had destroyed 

the document and would refrain from 

using any CBI that they may have 

viewed. The attorney also immediately 

reported the breach to the opposing 

counsel and, two days later, reported 

the breach to the Commission. 

In determining whether to issue a 

sanction for the breach, the Commission 

considered mitigating factors, including 

that: (1) the breach was inadvertent and 

unintentional; (2) the law firm 

discovered its own breach; (3) the law 

firm promptly self-reported the breach; 

(4) after discovering the breach, the law 

firm took prompt action to remedy the 

breach and prevent further 

dissemination of CBI; (5) the law firm 

implemented new procedures to prevent 

against similar breaches in the future; 

and (6) the attorney had not previously 

breached an APO in the two-year period 

preceding the date of this breach. The 

Commission also considered the 

aggravating factor that unauthorized 

persons had access to and presumably 

viewed CBI. 

The Commission issued a private 

letter of reprimand to the attorney. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 1, 2023. 

Sharon Bellamy, 

Supervisory Hearings and Information 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2023–26806 Filed 12–6–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–23–058] 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

Agency Holding the Meeting: United 

States International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: December 14, 2023 at 

11:00 a.m. 

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 

(202) 205–2000. 

STATUS: Open to the public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Agendas for future meetings: none. 

2. Minutes. 

3. Ratification List. 

4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701– 

TA–583 and 731–TA–1381 

(Review)(Cast Iron Soil Pipe Fittings 

from China). The Commission currently 

is scheduled to complete and file its 

determinations and views of the 

Commission on December 21, 2023. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1